Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 2023
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is both an honor and a pleasure to hold the 16th ACM Symposium on Document Engineering, DocEng 2016, at the TU Wien, Austria, organized by the Computer Vision Lab (CVL). DocEng is the leading international ACM symposium for researchers, practitioners, developers, and users to explore cutting-edge ideas and to exchange techniques, tools, and experiences in the domain of document engineering. It aims at bringing together researchers in the fields of computer vision, multimedia technologies, image processing, image analysis, information and systems analysis, electronic publishing, business process analysis, and business informatics. The symposium is intended as convention of renowned experts in all areas of document engineering of both academia and industry to present and discuss recent progress and advances in the fields of: document models and structures, document representation and standards, distributed documents, collaborative documents and the sharing economy, document internationalization, multilingual representations, document authoring tools and systems, document presentation (typography, formatting, layout), automatically generated documents, content customization, variable printing, documents for mobile devices, web document processing and interaction, document repositories, massive collections of documents, digital libraries and archives, secure document workflows, collaborative authoring and editing, culture-dependent layouts, and many more. Our call for papers attracted submissions from 27 countries (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Macao, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam). All papers were carefully reviewed by a minimum of three Program Committee members, upon which decisions for acceptance were based on correctness, presentation, technical depth, scientific significance and originality. The Program Committee accepted 11 of 35 reviewed full paper submissions (31%) and 12 of 36 reviewed short paper submissions (33%) for oral presentation, for a combined acceptance rate of 32%. A further 10 short paper submissions were accepted for poster presentation. This year's program includes a Doctoral Consortium as a special session for the fourth time, where doctoral students in their second year or later present their dissertation project and get feedback from a panel of senior researchers as well as from the general audience. This session, called ProDoc@DocEng, is intended to provide students with constructive criticism and helps them in formulating their research question, deciding about methods and approaches to use, and creating further ideas. This is one of the key ways in which we support the future generation of researchers in Document Engineering. A true highlight of this year's DocEng are the valuable and insightful keynote talks: Design Is Not What You Think It Is, Peter Bi?ak, founder of the Typotheque design studio and Lecturer at the Royal Academy of Arts in The Hague, Netherlands Research Infrastructures, or How Document Engineering, Cultural Heritage and Digital Humanities Can Go Together, Gunter Muhlberger, from the University of Innsbruck, Austria The Proceedings of DocEng 2016 contain the papers in the same order as they were presented at the conference, grouped by their corresponding thematic session. In putting these Proceedings together, many people played a significant role which we would like to acknowledge: First of all, our thanks are due to the authors who contributed their work to the symposium. Secondly, we are grateful for the dedicated work of the 60 members of the Program Committee for their effort in evaluating the submitted papers and in providing the necessary decision support information and the valuable feedback for the authors. We also thank Sonja Schimmler for organizing the first day with two tutorials and two workshops, Cerstin Mahlow for coordinating ProDoc@DocEng, Charles Nicholas for chairing the Birds of a Feather session, and Ethan Munson for his support regarding the Student Travel Awards. We also thank the Steering Committee and in particular Steven Simske for their support.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,191 | 0,142 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».